kettlechips

So you're saying because the temperature increase is small, you no longer consider it an increase. That's absolutely ridiculous, unless you also consider evolution to be a hypothesis

Excargodog

You appear to have a comprehension problem. What I said was that the methodology of much of the historical baseline - calculating annual temperatures based upon the growth intervals as determined by the rings of trees - had a large signal to noise ratio. It’s not that the model demonstrates a small magnitude difference, it is that the correlation of the THING BEING MEASURED ( size of growth ring) to ITEM OF INTEREST (mean yearly temperature) is not high even now, and we have no reliable way whatever of ascertaining what it was then.

As I said, the signal to noise ratio is not particularly good, either to prove or to disprove the hypothesis.

And no, I’d consider evolution to be an honest to God (pun intended) theory. There are many short lived life forms like bacteria where we can witness the effects and tinker with it. For that matter, there are natural experiments. The Malpais in New Mexico are the result of a lava flow only About 5000 years ago yet the desert animals in the area have evolved their coloring to match the distinctive lava flow as protective camouflage from predation. We can infer (although not definitively prove) that those who had a more lava like appearance got eaten by other critters at a lesser rate than those who did not. Conversely, a couple hundred miles south, the same species in the White Sands area are - wait for it - white, presumably for the same reason.

Those of you who claim to believe in the process of science really do need to stop assuming anyone who legitimately retains a degree of skepticism from your orthodoxy is some sort of uneducated hick or religious nut.

The process of scientific research is the null hypothesis, that you should be SKEPTICAL of theories, not that they become your own personal dogma. Until alternative hypotheses - including the null hypothesis - have been statistically eliminated, one should keep an open mind.

https://newonlinecourses.science.psu...t502/node/139/

JohnBurke

Hardly tree rings; the geological record is a bit more diverse, and the record goes back a long, long way.

Excargodog

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/pictu...arn-tree-rings

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2540/t...-past-climate/

https://www.nap.edu/read/11676/chapter/7

https://www.clim-past.net/6/367/2010/cp-6-367-2010.pdf

https://arstechnica.com/science/2013...cience-debate/


Yes, tree rings. And you would simply be amazed at the amount of money spent on the issue despite known defects in the methodology and uncertainty in the derived data because frankly, for much of the surface of the globe it’s the only long term historical measurement available, particularly for areas unaffected by local human habitation.

Much of the whole model depends on the reliability of these historic studies to establish a baseline because no other is available, but the extent to which tree ring studies are a valid proxy for historical temperature observations is itself a scientific controversy and the potential variance from the predicted (and IPCC accepted) values are high. That means that while the values MAY be correct, the likelihood that they ARE correct, is considerably LESS than commonly believed.

And every single part of the model has these controversies. For that matter, most atmospheric scientists will tell you that one of the most important drivers of temperature (as opposed to weather) is the albedo of the Earth’s atmosphere, which is not included in the model at all because we have no historical measurements of it prior to 1957 and pretty sparse data until the ISS went up.

Anyone who believes this science is settled is simply wrong. That doesn’t mean it’s bogus, h€||, it may UNDERSTATE the problem, but people are assuming a certainty to scenarios, often worst case scenarios, that simply isn’t warranted by the reliability of the model.

OOfff

Pilots when non-pilots talk about aviation: “LOL these idiots don’t know anything about aviation. You can’t understand our industry’s complexity without years of experience.”


Non-climatologist pilots talking about climate change: “I know it’s false, despite no training, education, or experience in the field.”

rickair7777

Aviation is rather more black and white.

My family (and circle of family friends) are mostly science academics (hard science PhDs). None of them feel that the current "climate science" sold for mass political consumption is rock solid. Climate scientists are not inherently trustworthy when grants and celebrity are at stake. There are a lot of complexities and most likely NOBODY fully comprehends all of the interactions. For example they were pretty darn sure about global warming... until they had to rebrand it. "Rebranding" to adjust your hypothetical model does not smack of good science to those who know what good science is supposed to look like.

There's obviously something going on, but it's really hard to predict the ramifications or even how the root cause(s) interact.

Also hard to predict how successful any proposed solutions will be. And it probably doesn't matter what the first world does with carbon if the third world keeps slashing and burning rain forests... equatorial forests really do account a lot of absorption, and there is a very large natural metabolic cycle of emission and absorption by living things. That cycle still needs rain forests, unless we want to build CO2 absorption machines (theoretically possible, but probably pretty expensive).

But all that said, the political reality is that carbon emissions must be reduced. Certain political critters love nothing more than tearing down the system, and carbon is a great excuse to do just that. They're going to hold on to this with a death grip, and the inherent complexity of the science only works to their advantage (hard to prove, disprove, or quantify the cause or correction).

Excargodog

And ALSO

It cuts both ways.

JohnBurke

Climate change deniers are the same trumpists who'd have tried and imprisoned Galileo in a former era. Burying one's head in the sand is the death of intellect, akin to closing ones eyes to fly an approach and landing.

OOfff

You know, except that one side is agreeing with almost every single expert in the field...so it doesn’t cut both ways at all.

Excargodog

As the Catholic Church did before Copernicus. Yes, it cuts both ways.